The dimension of non-objectification, although it may not be described, may be realized through direct experience.

"Monks, that dimension should be experienced where the eye [vision] stops and the perception [label] of form fades. That dimension should be experienced where the ear stops and the perception of sound fades... where the nose stops and the perception of aroma fades... where the tongue stops and the perception of flavor fades... where the body stops and the perception of tactile sensation fades... where the intellect stops and the perception of idea/phenomenon fades: That dimension should be experienced."— SN 35.116

Ven. Thanissaro went on and explained what that dimension of non-objectification means:

This experience of the goal — absolutely unlimited freedom, beyond classification and exclusive of all else — is termed the elemental nibbāna property with no 'fuel' remaining (anupādisesa-nibbāna-dhātu).

Ven. T then further elaborated on its unique characteristic of being free from all conditioned conceptions a few paragraphs above his citing of SN 35.116:

Thus when a mind has abandoned all phenomena, there is no means or criterion by which anyone else could know or say anything about it. This much is obvious. But the verse also seems to be saying that the goal is indescribable from the inside — for the person experiencing it — as well. First, the verse is in response to Upasīva's inquiry into the goal as the Buddha has known it. Secondly, the line, 'for him it doesn't exist,' can mean not only that the person experiencing the goal offers no criteria to the outside by which anyone else might describe him/her, but also that the experience offers no criteria from the inside for describing it either. And as we have already noted, the outside criteria by which a person might be described are determined precisely by what is there inside the person's mind. Thus, for the person experiencing the goal, there would not even be any means of knowing whether or not there was a person having the experience. There would simply be the experience in & of itself.

...So to say that no criterion/measurement/limit exists for the person experiencing the goal means that the person's experience is totally free of all the most elementary perceptions & distinctions that underlie our knowledge of the cosmos. And the word 'free' — one of the few the Buddha uses in a straightforward way to describe the mind that has attained the goal — thus carries two meanings: free from dependency, as we have already seen; and free from limitations, even of the most abstruse & subtlest sort.

It's always useful to compare some translations. With respect for Ven. Thanissaro's big efforts, but I find it especially useful to do this when his translations incorporate his view of some seventh sense consciousness.

Alternatives:

“Therefore, bhikkhus, that base should be understood,102 where the eye ceases and perception of forms fades away.103 That base should be understood, where the ear ceases and perception of sounds fades away.… That base should be understood, where the mind ceases and perception of mental phenomena fades away. That base should be understood.”http://palicanon.org/index.php/sutta-pi ... ense-bases

4. ßTherefore monks, you should know the sphere in which the eye ceases and the perception of forms lose interest, the ear ceases and the perception of sounds lose interest.ûRepeat for the nose.ßYou should know the sphere, in which the tongue ceases and the perception of tastes lose interest.ûRepeat for the body.ßYou should know the sphere, in which the mind ceases and the perception of ideas lose interest.ûhttp://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pit ... ggo-E.html

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but "to be understood/know/experienced(?)", in Pali is "veditabba" correct? Pali dictionary here does not speak of experienced as a translation of this. It says:

veditabba: to be understood or known

Of course experiencing and understanding something is a different thing entirely.

I would like to see Ven. Bodhi's translation, but I don't have it here. Perhaps somebody can share how he chose to translate it.edit: seems like this is the palicanon.org translation.

Last edited by reflection on Wed Jul 24, 2013 2:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

reflection wrote:I would like to see Ven. Bodhi's translation, but I don't have it here. Perhaps somebody can share how he chose to translate it.

The palicanon.org version actually uses Ven. Bodhi translation, which rendered it as "understood". In his "Numerical Discourses" at AN 10.113, there're similar instances:

"Bhikkhus, what is non-Dhamma and harmful should be understood, and what is the Dhamma and beneficial should also be understood"

Note: Adhammo ca bhikkhave veditabbo anattho ca; dhammo ca veditabbo attho ca. Here dhamma should be understood more in the sense of the principle of goodness and truth than in the narrow sense of the Buddha’s teaching. And attha should be understood in the sense of what is good, beneficial, and profitable (in a spiritual sense), what leads to one’s long-term well-being and happiness. The word also means “meaning.” Often dhamma and attha are paired off as two things that are to be understood and appreciated in the contemplative process, as in the expression atthaveda and dhammaveda, or atthapatisamvedi dhammapatisamvedi.

reflection wrote:I would like to see Ven. Bodhi's translation, but I don't have it here. Perhaps somebody can share how he chose to translate it.

The palicanon.org version actually uses Ven. Bodhi translation, which rendered it as "understood". In his "Numerical Discourses" at AN 10.113, there're similar instances:

"Bhikkhus, what is non-Dhamma and harmful should be understood, and what is the Dhamma and beneficial should also be understood"

Note: Adhammo ca bhikkhave veditabbo anattho ca; dhammo ca veditabbo attho ca. Here dhamma should be understood more in the sense of the principle of goodness and truth than in the narrow sense of the Buddha’s teaching. And attha should be understood in the sense of what is good, beneficial, and profitable (in a spiritual sense), what leads to one’s long-term well-being and happiness. The word also means “meaning.” Often dhamma and attha are paired off as two things that are to be understood and appreciated in the contemplative process, as in the expression atthaveda and dhammaveda, or atthapatisamvedi dhammapatisamvedi.

Yes, I found this out in the meantime. Thanks.

Thanks for the similar instance. There to translate it with "experience" doesn't make sense from any point of view I would say. The Buddha quite obviously wouldn't encourage one to experience what is non-Dhamma and harmful. So the translation "to be understood" is far more acceptable.

SarathW wrote:The dimension of non-objectification, although it may not be described, may be realized through direct experience.

"Monks, that dimension should be experienced where the eye [vision] stops and the perception [label] of form fades. That dimension should be experienced where the ear stops and the perception of sound fades... where the nose stops and the perception of aroma fades... where the tongue stops and the perception of flavor fades... where the body stops and the perception of tactile sensation fades... where the intellect stops and the perception of idea/phenomenon fades: That dimension should be experienced."— SN 35.116

I'll give my worldling answer to this.All of the functions of the body happen regardless of our state of mind. The mind of the typical worldling is constantly analyzing the various sensations which occur at the body. In this process of analysis one of the early steps is to separate the body into different types of sensations and attribute these sensations to different places on the body. This analysis creates the concepts of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and tactility so that each can be focused on clearly independently of the others....and this analysis includes classifying the various types of sensations which occur at each of these places.....and this analysis goes on to include an external world filled with objects which provide those types of sensations.....and gives names to those objects....etc.....

My view is that for all of the senses to stop like it says in your reference means that the mind suspends that analytical process which makes it understand that there are separate sensory organs and so sensation is experienced in an undifferentiated way. So from this standpoint as viewed by a worldling it is still experienced through the usual sense bases but the sense bases are not differentiated....that is to say that sensations are so undifferentiated that one forgets about the existence of separate organs and actually it can get so that not only are separate organs forgotten but even the existence of the body is forgotten....and when these sorts of things happen experience is of a type so different from usual that it is not describable even when experienced.chownah

SarathW wrote:Thanks Santa and Kirk: ======================Kirk said:Which does not mean, by thinking.

==============================Q1) Are you suggesting that there is something outside five aggregate?Q2) Does this applicable to Arahant after death? ((anupādisesa-nibbāna-dhātu).

I'm not suggesting anything besides trying to answer your question. I think these new questions start getting further entangled in abstractions. A more interesting follow up would be, if not by thinking-mind, then what mind is Venerable Nagasena referring to?

"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

chownah wrote:I'll give my worldling answer to this.All of the functions of the body happen regardless of our state of mind. The mind of the typical worldling is constantly analyzing the various sensations which occur at the body. In this process of analysis one of the early steps is to separate the body into different types of sensations and attribute these sensations to different places on the body. This analysis creates the concepts of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and tactility so that each can be focused on clearly independently of the others....and this analysis includes classifying the various types of sensations which occur at each of these places.....and this analysis goes on to include an external world filled with objects which provide those types of sensations.....and gives names to those objects....etc.....

My view is that for all of the senses to stop like it says in your reference means that the mind suspends that analytical process which makes it understand that there are separate sensory organs and so sensation is experienced in an undifferentiated way. So from this standpoint as viewed by a worldling it is still experienced through the usual sense bases but the sense bases are not differentiated....that is to say that sensations are so undifferentiated that one forgets about the existence of separate organs and actually it can get so that not only are separate organs forgotten but even the existence of the body is forgotten....and when these sorts of things happen experience is of a type so different from usual that it is not describable even when experienced.chownah

I don't think your interpretation is correct. From further down in that same link, this to me clearly suggests no sensory experience at all.

Thus the completely free & unadulterated experience we have been discussing is that of nibbāna after death. There are, though, states of concentration which give a foretaste of this experience in the present life and which enabled the Buddha to say that he taught the goal on the basis of direct knowledge.

Ānanda: 'In what way, venerable sir, might a monk attain concentration of such a form that he would have neither the perception of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?'

The Buddha: 'There is the case, Ānanda, where he would be percipient of this: "This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; stopping; nibbāna."'

— AN 10.6

"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

chownah wrote:I'll give my worldling answer to this.All of the functions of the body happen regardless of our state of mind. The mind of the typical worldling is constantly analyzing the various sensations which occur at the body. In this process of analysis one of the early steps is to separate the body into different types of sensations and attribute these sensations to different places on the body. This analysis creates the concepts of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and tactility so that each can be focused on clearly independently of the others....and this analysis includes classifying the various types of sensations which occur at each of these places.....and this analysis goes on to include an external world filled with objects which provide those types of sensations.....and gives names to those objects....etc.....

My view is that for all of the senses to stop like it says in your reference means that the mind suspends that analytical process which makes it understand that there are separate sensory organs and so sensation is experienced in an undifferentiated way. So from this standpoint as viewed by a worldling it is still experienced through the usual sense bases but the sense bases are not differentiated....that is to say that sensations are so undifferentiated that one forgets about the existence of separate organs and actually it can get so that not only are separate organs forgotten but even the existence of the body is forgotten....and when these sorts of things happen experience is of a type so different from usual that it is not describable even when experienced.chownah

I don't think your interpretation is correct. From further down in that same link, this to me clearly suggests no sensory experience at all.

Thus the completely free & unadulterated experience we have been discussing is that of nibbāna after death. There are, though, states of concentration which give a foretaste of this experience in the present life and which enabled the Buddha to say that he taught the goal on the basis of direct knowledge.

Ānanda: 'In what way, venerable sir, might a monk attain concentration of such a form that he would have neither the perception of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?'

The Buddha: 'There is the case, Ānanda, where he would be percipient of this: "This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; stopping; nibbāna."'

— AN 10.6

I accept that you do not agree with my views as expressed but I want to say that in my view what I have said does address the issues in the portion of AN 10.6. It asks, "in what way.......have neither the PERCEPTION of earth...water....etc.....and yet he would STILL BE PERCIPIENT. I maintain that what I have described does in fact represent a state of mind that would do that.......and......to depart from the worldly side of this and to speak to the more noble aspects I am of the view that all the rest (resolution of fabrications, relinquishing of acquisitions, etc.) comes along too.chownah

SarathW wrote:"Ānanda, where he would be percipient "=================It is because he still got his old body.

I would say that from a worldly point of view, yes he still has his body........but from a non-worldly view I would say that there is no self there to have a body and the body would no longer be being fabricated. My view is that my worldly explanation relates to the worldly question of the body in a precisely analogous way to the suttas assertion that there is still perception.chownah

chownah wrote:I accept that you do not agree with my views as expressed but I want to say that in my view what I have said does address the issues in the portion of AN 10.6. It asks, "in what way.......have neither the PERCEPTION of earth...water....etc.....and yet he would STILL BE PERCIPIENT. I maintain that what I have described does in fact represent a state of mind that would do that.......and......to depart from the worldly side of this and to speak to the more noble aspects I am of the view that all the rest (resolution of fabrications, relinquishing of acquisitions, etc.) comes along too.chownah

It sayswhere the eye [vision] stops and the perception [label] of form fade

"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

chownah wrote:I'll give my worldling answer to this.All of the functions of the body happen regardless of our state of mind. The mind of the typical worldling is constantly analyzing the various sensations which occur at the body. In this process of analysis one of the early steps is to separate the body into different types of sensations and attribute these sensations to different places on the body. This analysis creates the concepts of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and tactility so that each can be focused on clearly independently of the others....and this analysis includes classifying the various types of sensations which occur at each of these places.....and this analysis goes on to include an external world filled with objects which provide those types of sensations.....and gives names to those objects....etc.....

My view is that for all of the senses to stop like it says in your reference means that the mind suspends that analytical process which makes it understand that there are separate sensory organs and so sensation is experienced in an undifferentiated way. So from this standpoint as viewed by a worldling it is still experienced through the usual sense bases but the sense bases are not differentiated....that is to say that sensations are so undifferentiated that one forgets about the existence of separate organs and actually it can get so that not only are separate organs forgotten but even the existence of the body is forgotten....and when these sorts of things happen experience is of a type so different from usual that it is not describable even when experienced.chownah

I don't think your interpretation is correct. From further down in that same link, this to me clearly suggests no sensory experience at all.

Thus the completely free & unadulterated experience we have been discussing is that of nibbāna after death. There are, though, states of concentration which give a foretaste of this experience in the present life and which enabled the Buddha to say that he taught the goal on the basis of direct knowledge.

Ānanda: 'In what way, venerable sir, might a monk attain concentration of such a form that he would have neither the perception of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient?'

The Buddha: 'There is the case, Ānanda, where he would be percipient of this: "This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; stopping; nibbāna."'

— AN 10.6

Here it speaks of no perception of the four elements (ie body), and not saying there is no mind, unlike the first quote. So seems to me it is about a mental perception that is not nibbana itself, but a reflection upon nibbana, knowing how "this is peace etc."

The first quote is as I showed a mistranslation. When the 6 senses stop there is nothing left to be experienced.

reflection wrote:Here it speaks of no perception of the four elements (ie body), and not saying there is no mind, unlike the first quote. So seems to me it is about a mental perception that is not nibbana itself, but a reflection upon nibbana, knowing how "this is peace etc."

The first quote is as I showed a mistranslation. When the 6 senses stop there is nothing left to be experienced.

Did you see this part?

MahāKoṭṭhita: 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six spheres of contact, is it the case that there is not anything else?'

Sāriputta: 'Don't say that, my friend.'

This is "nibbana itself" as it specifically says. Where else would "nibbana itself" be described?

The Buddha: 'There is the case, Ānanda, where he would be percipient of this: "This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; stopping; nibbāna."'

"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

AN 9.34 wrote:When this was said, Ven. Udayin said to Ven. Sariputta, "But what is the pleasure here, my friend, where there is nothing felt?"

"Just that is the pleasure here, my friend: where there is nothing felt.

It seems the Suttas suggest that the absence of something can be experienced.

The dimension of non-objectification, although it may not be described, may be realized through direct experience.

I guess same thing applies here. The absence may be realized through direct experience. I don't know whether we can speak of "experiencing" the absence of something or not. Maybe "not experiencing the presence" is a better term.

AN 9.34 wrote:When this was said, Ven. Udayin said to Ven. Sariputta, "But what is the pleasure here, my friend, where there is nothing felt?"

"Just that is the pleasure here, my friend: where there is nothing felt.

It seems the Suttas suggest that the absence of something can be experienced.

The dimension of non-objectification, although it may not be described, may be realized through direct experience.

I guess same thing applies here. The absence may be realized through direct experience. I don't know whether we can speak of "experiencing" the absence of something or not. Maybe "not experiencing the presence" is a better term.

best wishes, acinteyyo

Do you realize they are talking about the absence of "the all"? Which is to be "abandoned" as the Buddha said.

"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230

SN 35.24 wrote:"Monks, I will teach you the All as a phenomenon to be abandoned. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "And which All is a phenomenon to be abandoned? The eye is to be abandoned. [1] Forms are to be abandoned. Consciousness at the eye is to be abandoned. Contact at the eye is to be abandoned. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is to be abandoned.

Note:[1] To abandon the eye, etc., here means to abandon passion and desire for these things.

note the note. Is there anything you want to point out particularly kirk5a?

acinteyyo wrote:Not right from the start but now that you mention it, yes...

SN 35.24 wrote:"Monks, I will teach you the All as a phenomenon to be abandoned. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "And which All is a phenomenon to be abandoned? The eye is to be abandoned. [1] Forms are to be abandoned. Consciousness at the eye is to be abandoned. Contact at the eye is to be abandoned. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is to be abandoned.

Note:[1] To abandon the eye, etc., here means to abandon passion and desire for these things.

note the note. Is there anything you want to point out particularly kirk5a?

best wishes, acinteyyo

Yes, that "the all" is "subject to cessation" as SN 35.42 says. So then, clearly what is under discussion here is the "experience" of the cessation of "the all."

"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230